Shri. Jitendra Kumar Nahar HUF, Durg V. Income Tax Officer -3, BHILAI(CG)

ITA 13/BIL/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 94012 (ITAT-RAIPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 5 month(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 19-06-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 19-01-2012
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SHEETAL S VERMA
• Assessee Lawyers: S R RAO

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RAIPUR BENCH, RAIPUR BEFORE SHRI MUKUL K. SHRAWAT , JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER . IT A NO. 13 / BLPR./201 2 ( ASSESSMENT YEAR : 20 08 09 ) SHRI JITENDRA KUMAR NAHAR ( HUF ) 1, MALVIYA NAGAR, DURG 4 91 001 CHHATTISGARH PAN AADHJ7837B APPELLANT V/S INCOME TAX OFFICER 3 AAYAKAR BHAVAN NEW CIVIC CENTRE, BHILIA (C.G) .... RESPONDENT ASSESSEE BY : SHRI S.R. RAO REVENUE BY : SMT. SHEETAL S. VERMA DATE OF HEARING 1 8 .06.2015 DATE OF ORDER 19 .06.2015 O R D E R PER SHAMIM YA H YA, A .M. T HIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 10 TH JANUARY 2011 , PASSED BY THE LEARNED CIT(A) , BILASPUR, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 20 08 09 . 2. THE ISSUE RAISED IN THIS APPEAL IS THAT THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE DISALLOWANCE OF ` 1,60,000, OUT OF ` 3,22,296, SHOWN AS AGRICULTURAL INCOME BY THE ASSESSEE. SHRI JITENDRA KUMAR NAHAR (HUF) 2 3. IN THIS CASE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE A DISALLOWANCE OF ` 1,60,000, OUT OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE AT ` 3,22,296. THE REA SON FOR THE SAME IS STATED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS THAT THE ASSESSEES COUNSEL HAD SUBMITTED THAT HE CANNOT PRODUCE ANY BILL OF SALE OR PURCHASE AND WAS UNABLE TO PROVE ANY DETAILS OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME AS DECLARED. 4. BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT(A), THE ASS ESSEE CONTENDED THAT THE ASSESSEE HUF OWNS 22.48 ACRES OF AGRICULTURAL LAND AT DIFFERENT PLACES. THE AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITIES AND SALE OF AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE WAS MANAGED BY THE PERSON RESIDING AT THESE PLACES. THE AMOUNT RECEIVED FROM THEM WAS SHOWN AS AGR ICULTURAL INCOME. IT WAS ALSO CONTENDED THAT INCOME FROM AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITIES DISCLOSED AT A HIGHER FIGURE IN THE IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING YEAR WAS ACCEPTED BY THE DEPARTMENT. HOWEVER, THE LEARNED CIT(A) HELD THAT MERE OWNERSHIP OF AGRICULTURAL LAND WITHOU T EVIDENCE OF AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITY DONE ON SUCH LAND DOES NOT JUSTIFY AUTOMATICALLY THE GENUINENESS OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME. IN THIS REGARD, THE LEARNED CIT(A) PLACED RELIANCE ON SEVERAL CASE LAWS: I) CIT V/S RAJA BINOY KUMAR SAHAS ROY, [1957] 32 TR 466 (SC ) II) CIT V/S RAMAKRISHNA DEO, [1959] 35 ITR 312 (SC) III) RIDHKARANDAS POONAMCHAND BHURA V/S CIT, 231 ITR 604 (MP) SHRI JITENDRA KUMAR NAHAR (HUF) 3 5. FURTHERMORE, THE LEARNED CIT(A) HELD THAT JUST BECAUSE IN THE IMMEDIATE PRECEDING YEAR, A HIGHER AGRICULTURAL INCOME WAS DISCLOSED WOULD NOT JUSTIFY THE ASSESSEES CLAIM AS PRINCIPLES OF RESJUDICATA OR RULE OF ESTOPPLE IS NOT APPLICABLE TO ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS IN THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. THE MISTAKEN VIEW IN INCOME TAX ASSESSMENT DOES NOT STOP THE OFFICER CONCERN FROM TAKING THE CORRECT VIEW. IN TH IS REGARD, THE LEARNED CIT(A) REFERRED TO FOLLOWING CASE LAWS: I) CWT V/S MEATTLES PVT. LTD., [1985] 165 ITR 569 (DEL.) ; AND II) UNION OF INDIA & ORS V/S GODFREY PHILIPS INDIA LTD., 158 ITR 574 (SC) AGAINST THE ABOVE ORDER, THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US . 6. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE REITERATED THE SUBMISSIONS AS MADE BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND THE LEARNED CIT(A). HE ALSO PLACED RELIANCE UPON THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF HARI PRASAD GUPTA, RAIPUR. 7. HAVING HEARD BOTH THE PARTI ES AND ON PERUSAL OF THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD, WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED A SUM OF ` 3,22,296, AS AGRICULTURAL INCOME. THE ASSESSEE HAD ACCEPTED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT HE HAD NO EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF THE CLAIM OF AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITY AND AGRICULTURAL INCOME. BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT(A) ALSO, EXCEPT THE CLAIM OF OWNERSHIP OF AGRICULTURAL LAND, NOTHING SHRI JITENDRA KUMAR NAHAR (HUF) 4 IN SUPPORT OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME HAS BEEN PRODUCED. IN THIS VIEW OF THE MATTER, IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION, THE LEARNED CIT(A) IS VERY CORRECT IN HOLDING THAT MERE OWNERSHIP OF AGRICULTURAL LAND WITHOUT EVIDENCE OF AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITIES DONE ON SUCH LAND DOES NOT JUSTIFY AUTOMATICALLY THE GENUINENESS OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME. SIMILARLY, THE MISTAKEN VIEW / THE VIEW TAKEN EARLIER CAN NOT OPERATE AS RESJUDICATA. IN THIS REGARD, THE CASE LAWS REFERRED TO BY THE LEARNED CIT(A) WHICH ARE FROM THE HON'BLE APEX COURT AND HAS ALSO BEEN REPRODUCED HEREIN ABOVE, ARE APPLICABLE ON THE FACTS OF THIS CASE. RULE OF PRECEDENCE MANDATE THAT VIEWS OF SUPERIOR JUDICIAL FORUM PREVAIL UPON THE VIEWS EXPRESSED BY LOWER COURTS AND TRIBUNALS. IN THIS VIEW OF THE MATTER AND AFTER CONSIDERING ALL THE CASE LAWS SUBMITTED AND IN THE LIGHT OF THE DISCUSSION AND PRECEDENCE FROM THE HON'BLE APEX COURT HEREIN ABOVE, WE UPHOLD THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(A). 8. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE STANDS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT O N 19 TH JUNE 2015 SD/ - MUKUL K. SHRAWAT JUDICIAL MEMBER SD/ - SHAMIM YAHYA ACCOUNTANT MEMBER RAI PUR , DA TED : 19 TH JUNE 2015 SHRI JITENDRA KUMAR NAHAR (HUF) 5 COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : (1) THE ASSESSEE ; (2) THE REVENUE; (3) THE CIT(A ) ; (4) THE CIT, BILASPUR CITY CONCERNED ; (5) THE DR, ITAT, RAIPUR ; (6) GUARD FILE . TRUE COPY BY ORDER PRADEEP J. CHOWDHURY SR. PRIVATE SECRETARY SR. PRIVATE SECRETARY / ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, RAIPUR